Page 144 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

534 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

that the CLRI reports in respect of the same leather are different and con-
tradictory. However, it is not the case that the remnant samples of the one
earlier tested by the CLRI have been cast to test by the appellant. On the
other hand, appellant have themselves sent the samples on their own with-
out following the procedural requirements of consignment samples. They
have not drawn samples in the presence of all stake holders. In any case, it
appears that they have been sent to CLRI after the earlier consignments
have been allowed to be exported albeit on redemption fine etc. In the cir-
cumstances, when the appellant themselves are placing absolute reliance on
CLRI report, in respect of sample sent by them, they cannot then make as-
persions at reports of CLRI on samples sent by the department.
5.3 The appellant has filed Miscellaneous Application Nos.
C/Misc./40163, 40165 and 40167/2013 requesting to send the samples for re-
testing. After a lapse of more than a decade we do not think that such testing would
serve any purpose. The remnant samples may well have been disposed of by
CLRI after a prescribed time limit. Even if the samples are still available, the
passage of time, namely of almost nine years would surely have caused at
least some perceptible, if not irreversible changes in the physical or other
characteristics of the samples. For these reasons, the miscellaneous applica-
tion for retesting is dismissed.
5.4 We also find that the adjudicating authorities in each of these appeals
have been quite reasonable in their adjudication. In the first place, relating
to FOB value, the redemption fine for export imposed under section 125
ibid as also the penalty imposed under section 114H are quite reasonable,
just and fair, as under :-

Shipping Bill FOB Value Redemption fine Penalty
3969869 8,36,534/- 70,000/- 10,000/-
3969871 8,95,712/- 70,000/- 10,000/-
3963901 27,08,304/- 2,00,000/- 25,000/-

6. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the orders passed
by the authorities below, for which reason, the impugned order is sustained
and the appeals are dismissed.”
3. The Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. V.B.R. Menon vehement-
ly submitted that the report of Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI) dated
16-10-2009, according to which, the sample of the leather of the present appellant
was held not satisfying, the norms and conditions laid down in the relevant noti-
fication as ‘Finished Leather’ was not justified, because the samples tested under
the said report dated 16-10-2009 by CLRI, the goods were mentioned as ‘Cow
Softy Upper Leather (Crunch) Colour. OLIVE (VI)(1)(E)’, whereas the assessee on
export has mentioned in the Invoice as “Cow Crunch Upper Leather”. He submit-
ted that if the export was “Finished Leather”, then the duty was not leviable un-
der the provisions of the Customs Act, whereas if the goods on export were
found to be ‘not Finished Leather’, levy of duty was attracted. He submitted that
the Assessee himself obtained a Report from the same CLRI vide Report dated
22-10-2009 which satisfied the criteria of “Finished Leather” and description of
goods in the said report dated 22-10-2009 were shown to be “Cow Lining Leather
Colour. OLIVE (KISSEL)(IV)(1)”. He further submitted that the basis of the report
of the CLRI obtained by the appellant/assessee, at his own instance, clearly
showed that the Report obtained by the Revenue from CLRI vide report dated
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  144